quote:Originally posted by Rahala: ^what is the meaning of Tafseer?
The man looks at the text ,looks at the reason of the revealtion of the verses look at ahadeeth and then he forms an understanding for the Koran ,so we have IbnKaseer and Al-Tabary and alsa'dy .Al-Galaleen ,Sharawwy (which is the best IMO and others too) we have Al-Ghazaly ,
Btw,some verses in the translation of Khan?Yusuf Ali/Pikhithal is not his unserstanding but copied directly from Tafseer Al-Tabary (hate to tell you that even translators when they do not understand they translate Tafseer )
Well I am waiting the question about which verse is a translation of a tabary rather Quran?
why in the first place we restore to something like that?
because verses sometimes as the one I pointed to is full of pronouns and it is IMPOSSIBLE to know its meaning unless we know why it was revealed and what the prophet said about it!
======== for Dalia
Keep swimming away from the question
I have answered all your questions and up till now I have not got a question answered
you didnt answer the question 'who added the geem', are you avoiding it?
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I ask a question then you reply with a counter question! isn't this called circular discussion !
The one who added this jeem is the prophet himself while reciting Quran!
How do you think Quran was collected?!
It was collected by people who were the companions of the prophet and told us who exactly it was recited by him!
and the "jeem "does not matter because the rules of Arabic control how words are positioned in the sentence and the rules tells us that this part of the sentence has nothing to do with the first part!
you still avoid answering the question I first asked"" where is the second object of the verb"
Posts: 2417 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rahala: very strange ayisha!
I ask a question then you reply with a counter question! isn't this called circular discussion !
No, I answered your question and raised a question, its called 'a discussion'
quote:The one who added this jeem is the prophet himself while reciting Quran!
How do you think Quran was collected?!
It was collected by people who were the companions of the prophet and told us who exactly it was recited by him!
and the "jeem "does not matter because the rules of Arabic control how words are positioned in the sentence and the rules tells us that this part of the sentence has nothing to do with the first part!
No, its called a 'full stop' in English, Period in American. The presence of jeem there denotes a 'stop' but it is not stopping the subject of the discussion, or the verse in this case, it is saying 'it is "permissible" to stop here. Ayn would denote the end of a 'section', meem would be used as a 'must stop or the meaning would be altered'. If it was moving on to something else, as you claim, then meem would have been used.
Look at verse 3:80, the jeem is used there too but it would be rediculous to say the second sentence had nothing to do with the first there.
quote:you still avoid answering the question I first asked"" where is the second object of the verb"
I did answer it, not to your liking though, so why dont you explain where it is, it will make you feel better and impress the audience. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. (JEEM is here) And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path.
saying this next sentence is nothing to do with the is previous again rediculous.
I can provide more if you need them.
Saying the prophet added it is silly, no markings were added until about 300 years after any of it was written down, what the prophet did was take a breath which denotes a full stop, not the end of the subject as can be seen in other verses. In 33:59, the great 'Gelbab' verse, there is a jeem right after the word 'Jalabihinna', so according to your logic the rest of the verse does not mean anything to do with Gelbab at all and starts another subject.
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sub-zero: We have to differentiate between Islam and Muslims. Muslims are the worst enemies to Islam even if they mean well. Look at the amount of negative propaganda and representation some Muslims give to the religion and you will know exactly what I mean.
I disagree. The Problem is Islam, not Muslims.
Good muslims give islam a bad name by following what is written in the Quran. Islam's founder, Mohammed, already gave Islam about as bad a name as possible by his behavior and example.
quote:Originally posted by Sub-zero: All religions are stuck in the middle ages simply because they were a product of those ages, you are right, Islam isn't singled out.
I disagree again. Compare the teachings of Jesus with that of Muhammad. The teachings and "sunna" of Jesus does not contain the violence and terror of Muhammad's teachings.
Thus the difference between Christianity and Islam lies in the difference between Jesus and Muhammad. This is the difference between day and night.
To reform Islam you have to first get rid of Muhammad and second get rid of the Quran. You have to take out a great portion of that book which is violent. The rest is nonsense and absurdity. But this you can’t do, because you have no authority to do such a thing. Muhammad said that he has perfected his religion (Q. 5:3).
You need to have an authority with a rank similar or superior to the one claimed by Muhammad to be able to reform Islam. But that can’t be done, because Muhammad said he was the last prophet.
You can’t change the Quran. You can’t reform it. All you can do is to reinterpret and, for example pretend, “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” means something else.
Or you can say these parts of the Quran are no longer applicable. The problem is: who gets to decide which parts of the Quran are applicable and which parts are obsolete? Who has such authority to make this decision?
quote:Originally posted by Sub-zero:
quote:Originally posted by Sub-zero: Something HAS to give in. Since we can not stop the evolving, neither could we change the religion, the only way out of this dilemma is to try to change our "understanding" of the religion in order to best suit our lives.
Many have tried to reform Islam and they all failed. No wonder. The Christian Reformation began as an attempt to reform, NOT the Christianity, but the Catholic Church. They did not defy the authority of the Bible. They suggested that the Bible should be read literally.
What today’s so called Islamic reformers are proposing is not reformation but transformation of Islam. Unlike the above mentioned reformers, these new reformer wannabes do not want to go to the origin of Islam, but rather they want to eschew part of the Quran and the entire Sharia and invent an entirely different religion, still calling it Islam.
This is delusional thinking, and impractical both logically and logistically. It is also strictly prohibited in the Quran.
These neoreformer wannabes want to change Islam to something different. In other words he wants to bring bid’a to Islam. Is that possible? Can believers have an opinion contrary to what the Quran says? We already saw that the Quran 33:36, prohibits the believers to have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have made their wishes known.
quote:Originally posted by Sub-zero: We just have to look at the wider picture, do you doubt for a second that God knows what we are going through? Would you believe for a second that the whole mighty throne of God will "shake" just because a girl lost her virginity, when you could have tens of concubines to pop their cherry without committing any sins?
The wider picture is that Islam is a lie. Muhammad was not a prophet of any God. I don’t know whether these words are from Christ or they are attributed to him, but whoever said them must have had a good understanding of the Principle underlying the creation. These words are: “Only truth will set us free.” I believe this is the ultimate wisdom. ONLY TRUTH WILL SET US FREE.
The problem with reformists and all offshoots of Islam is that they are offshoots of Islam. Although the followers of these sects have distanced themselves from the violence in the Quran, they are rooted in Islam, and they acknowledge Muhammad as a prophet of God.
You can’t build too high without a solid foundation. The foundation of these religions is Islam, and Islam is a lie.
Like you, the followers of religions that are offshoots of Islam say Muhammad belonged to another time. This is moral relativism. At what time was raiding innocent populations, slaying unarmed people and raping and enslaving their wives and children okay? Yes, of course there were just and good rulers at the time of Muhammad and before him. One such ruler was Cyrus the Great, king of Persia who eleven hundred years before Muhammad wrote the first known declaration of Human Rights.
The Declaration of Human Rights by Cyrus the Great:
“I am Kourosh (Cyrus), great king,…. Now that I put the crown of the kingdom of Iran, Babylon, and the nations of the four directions on the head with the help of Ahura, I announce that I will respect the traditions, customs and religions of the nations of my empire and never let any of my governors and subordinates look down on or insult them while I am alive. …I will impose my monarchy on no nation. Each is free to accept it, and if any one of them rejects it, I never resolve on war to reign. While I am the king… I will never let anyone oppress others…. I will never let anyone take possession of movable and landed properties of the others by force or without compensation. While I am alive, I will prevent unpaid, forced labor. Today, I announce that everyone is free to choose a religion.… No one could be penalized for his or her relatives' faults….”
Our species has not changed that much in such a short time. Good and bad people existed at all times. Even in our own time, we have had most brutal monsters, many of whom are still in power. Are the mullahs of Iran any better than the bloodthirsty tyrants of the past?
quote:Originally posted by Sub-zero: I don't blame the people as much, but I surely blame the leaders, the scientists throughout the ages that use religion as a mean to control the people for their own sake, and not the favor of the people.
No blame Muhammad.
quote:Originally posted by Sub-zero: The message in Islam, just like any other religion, is welfare of mankind, it is all meant to be for us. The only thing God asks in return is to acknowledge his oneness, and be good to one another.
Islam is not a religion but a political ideology of imperialism and domination in the guise of religion. It is not like any other religion.
The message of Islam is not self evident. For example Daoism is self evident, because Dao is the natural way – the way things are, the way things happen. You don’t have to be indoctrinated to understand Dao. All you need to do is to observe and see how winds blow, how sun rises and sets, how rain falls, how flowers blossom, how children learn to smile, how people get sick and die, etc. Anyone can discover the Dao on his/her own. You may need a coach but not indoctrination. Islam, like all other monotheistic religions is not that way. It has a set of rules and principles that you on your own can’t know unless someone tells you. This is precisely the role of the messenger. He is allegedly the one who brings a message to mankind and unless you don’t follow his instructions you can’t know the right way or what God wants from you. That is not the case with Daoism where there are no messengers and you are basically a guide unto your own. So, you don’t have to know anything about Lao Zi, Zhuang Zi or any of the masters of Dao to become a master yourself. Daoism is an art of living. Just like music, you can become a master musician without ever having heard of Mozart or Beethoven.
Islam is not that way. You can’t master Islam if you don’t know what the Quran says. Despite the comical claim of its adherents who say everyone is born Muslim, Islam does not come natural to us. We must be indoctrinated in it. The very fact that monotheist religions are prophet based, is proof that they are not natural or self evident. You must believe in those prophets and follow their teachings and you are not allowed to change an iota of what they say. This is not the case with natural “religions”. For example in Buddhism you are encouraged to question anything. You must love more the art than the teacher.
In Islam everything hinges on Muhammad. Muhammad claimed to have “sublime morals” 68:4 and ordered his followers to emulate his “good example” 33:21 because, as he claimed, he is “as a lamp spreading light” 33:46. While in Buddhism the practitioner must rely on his/her own understanding, in Islam the believer must stop reasoning and submit his understanding to what Muhammad said. No contradiction is allowed or tolerated.
The message of Islam is not also logical. You can’t arrive at it through induction or deduction, such as postulating assumptions and axioms and sequentially deriving a conclusion. It is a belief system. It boils down to the fact that Muhammad stated his claim and demanded people to believe. No logical argument or proof was ever given. Whenever people asked for proof, he called them:
“Deaf, dumb and blind” 2:18, 2:171 or “Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.” 2:7, 4:155, 6:46, 7:101,
These are called logical fallacies. They are argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ad baculum. He either insulted his opponents calling them blind and deaf with no understanding or threatened them with hellfire. Muslims keep rehashing the same logical fallacies ever since. But there is not a single logical argument presented in the Quran to convince us that Muhammad was indeed a messenger of God.
Therefore, since Muhammad presented no proof to back up his claim all we have are his words and his credibility as an honest or sane person. The sanity of Muhammad, his character and truthfulness are central to his claim. As we discussed this before, we do not question the credibility of a mailman when he hands us a sealed envelope that has not been tampered. But if someone brings you a verbal message you want to know how credible is this person, especially when you see he stands to benefit immensely from that message. If someone comes to your door and claims to have a warrant to search your house you want to see that warrant. His words are not enough. Muhammad not only did not produce any warrant, he actually convinced the inhabitants of the house to become his slaves, to worship him and to submit to his demands. In exchanged he promised them a bogus reward after death and threatened them of the consequences if they question him. What if he was an impostor? Imagine the embarrassment and the loss.
Quranists say Muhammad and his life have no bearing on the message of “salvation” that he delivered. What was this message of salvation? The only message that Muhammad gave is “BELIEVE IN ME”. That is in nutshell all what Muhammad said. He wanted people to believe in him. That is the message. Basically Muhammad IS the message. Of course he had to present himself as the mouthpiece of a very powerful and tyrannical deity to instill fear in people and manipulate them. God was a tool by which he could manipulate people and make them do anything including killing their own fathers.
“God is everything the narcissist ever wants to be: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, admired, much discussed, and awe inspiring. God is the narcissist's wet dream, his ultimate grandiose fantasy. But God comes handy in other ways as well.
The narcissist alternately idealizes and devalues figures of authority.
In the idealization phase, he strives to emulate them, he admires them, imitate them (often ludicrously), and defends them. They cannot go wrong, or be wrong. The narcissist regards them as bigger than life, infallible, perfect, whole, and brilliant. But as the narcissist's unrealistic and inflated expectations are inevitably frustrated, he begins to devalue his former idols.”
Posts: 3773 | From: unfinished thought | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by unfinished thought.: The Christian Reformation began as an attempt to reform, NOT the Christianity, but the Catholic Church. They did not defy the authority of the Bible.
Please expand these for me:
1) How could one differentiate between Christianity and the Catholic Church at the time? 2) Is it argumentatively correct to assume (in theory) that the Islamic Sunnah and Ahadeeth and additives is equivalent to the Catholic dominance in Christianity, thus COULD be reformed?
Posts: 657 | From: Cairo | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
GOOD MORNING FROM THE LOVELY MORNING OF ANTALYA ES PEOPLE, HAD A NICE SATURDAY BREAKFAST ON MY LOVELY BALCONY AND FEELING SUPER
Originally posted by Sub-zero:
quote: Thank you Shah, and your point is very clear. We have to differentiate between Islam and Muslims. Muslims are the worst enemies to Islam even if they mean well. Look at the amount of negative propaganda and representation some Muslims give to the religion and you will know exactly what I mean.
Thank you very much for your reply Subz. I am fully agree with you here. Yes we are the worst enemies of our own religion. But this fact exists not only for the extremists, but also for the modernists.
quote:All religions are stuck in the middle ages simply because they were a product of those ages, you are right, Islam isn't singled out. You want to evolve or be static? That is my question.
Maybe this is the hardest question in my mind about deen after the one 'which hadiths are the true ones?' How can we evolve it? What are the criterias for evolving? I am not the one who tries to fit the religion into FULL logic and feminist point of views, as believing Allah is something against logic actually. You know, you believe someone you have not seen yet. Human is the enemy of the unknown, human is the slave of his logic and mind is the worst enemy of ourselves, as evil encourages us to judge the religion a lot. Isn't religion some kind of obedient?
quote:Life as we know it is constantly interchanging and evolving while the religion is static. Something HAS to give in. Since we can not stop the evolving, neither could we change the religion, the only way out of this dilemma is to try to change our "understanding" of the religion in order to best suit our lives.
So Subz, doesn't that cause another dilemma? I mean if all of us create our own understanding, doesn't that cause many other problems?
quote:The reason I gave an example of Omar stopping some orders of the Quran, and not implementing others wasn't meant as a disrespect for him, but rather as an example to look at and consider today.
Do you mind if I ask you to summerize that Ömer part of the discussion? I know there is something like that around here but as soon as something turn into 'Another Ahmed and The Others Discussion' I give up reading
quote: We just have to look at the wider picture, do you doubt for a second that God knows what we are going through? Would you believe for a second that the whole mighty throne of God will "shake" just because a girl lost her virginity, when you could have tens of concubines to pop their cherry without committing any sins?
I believe that Allah is RAHMAN Subz and he gave only 1% of his Rahmaath and kept the rest for ahiraat
quote: I don't blame the people as much, but I surely blame the leaders, the scientists throughout the ages that use religion as a mean to control the people for their own sake, and not the favor of the people.
100% agree
quote: The message in Islam, just like any other religion, is welfare of mankind, it is all meant to be for us. The only thing God asks in return is to acknowledge his oneness, and be good to one another. God is not going to stand upon your shoulder to check if you are performing proper ablution or not. If we think so, then we are really belittling God.
You are also right here as well... But Quran is full of verses those help to arrange the daily lives, isn't it?. Otherwise Allah would only send the books for saying 'Guys I am somewhere around here, be good to each other' If deen wouldn't help to arrange our lives, then what is it for?
quote: God didn't ask us to follow Abu Qatada nor Abu Huriera, it is the intervention of man that put that whole area in the same category of the real message. God didn't ask the Muslims to be Sunni nor Shi'a? Ask yourself this: who made that?
Subz, actualy the conclusion is, people believe what they want to believe. Just like you or me. For example I chose to follow the doctrines of Rumi, which based on Allah and human love, tolerance; but at the same time accept the rules of Islam. . . . And UT... You are a nutjob Posts: 2591 | From: **Ex Oriente Lux** | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
The message of Islam is not also logical. You can’t arrive at it through induction or deduction, such as postulating assumptions and axioms and sequentially deriving a conclusion. It is a belief system. It boils down to the fact that Muhammad stated his claim and demanded people to believe. No logical argument or proof was ever given.
Reply..
That's because its DIVINE you moron...go argue with Allah and ask Him for proof of where He came from, tell Him that He the Almighty doesn't offer us schmucks any 'logical argument or proof' of how He became Allah/God ?? Posts: 3219 | From: Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone. | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 'Shahrazat: So Subz, doesn't that cause another dilemma? I mean if all of us create our own understanding, doesn't that cause many other problems?
I believe that man needs moral guidance just as well as he needs to be obedient to a "system".
Some find both in a religion, others are just content by the guidance of a man made law and only that law alone. Some might find morals in religion and they abide to a law that is accepted by "all" citizens. A law that everyone is equal in its eyes.
In the last aforementioned setup, there is no room for a dilemma simply because you can not enforce your thinking on others because you would be penalized by the law. The law here is the common denominator for all.
The dilemma begins when the sect who believe that "morals" and "obedience" are two faces of one coin. Obedience to THE system, hence, is replaced to obedience to MY system.
Posts: 657 | From: Cairo | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Verily ,you have no idea of what are you talkign about.lol
verily? you brought back fond memories of someone else then. Reminded me just how many like you that have eventually lost and left.
quote:Those who follow Quran do not follow anythin
and others who want to call themselves Quranists ,are nothing except satan worshippers (Quran says that and I will not tell you where ,search on your own )
you cannot show me any verse that says that, you CANNOT.
so you are saying there is nothing of importance in Quran. You are also saying those who follow Quran are satan worshippers.
What religion are you exactly?
Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sub-zero: To be honest and blunt, I believe that what is practiced today has boiled down into a race of performing rituals. But if one would summarize the whole Islam into two pivotal words, I believe those two words would be “Tawheed” and “Ihsan”. Those should be asserted.
Negatively: Moslems throughout time were taught to regard the “era” of the message as more important or at least “equivalent” to the initial message itself, thus tying Islam to a certain time frame that by logic, will never evolve in a constantly changing world, in the process; locking Islam “the message” in the medieval era. They worship the “era” AND the message.
Moslems from all over the world would almost worship the black stone although Islam fought paganism, they would almost worship the prophet, and the Khalifs as if they are part of the divine message and not as humans, although Islam fought figure worshiping. They fail to understand that even though the Prophet and his companions were devout, pious men, yet they were humans that did their best according to what they knew at the time. If the Prophet was to deliver the message today, he would have used the methods of today and disregard the methods of the past, yet the message would be the same.
What is sad is that Moslems nowadays are just content and boastful with the rising numbers of followers of the faith, more than worrying about the quality of those newcomers. Moslems nowadays would rather exhibit what they see as scientific miracles in the book rather than practicing science. They would take the judgments of scientists’ dead more than twelve centuries ago as the ultimate truth rather than seeking new solutions for new problems that they face. In other words; trying to fit the present into the past rather than vice versa.
Way out? :
Moslems must shake off the medieval practices and method of thinking and embrace the new world and the newer world to yet come, with an open mind AND an open heart if we want Islam to progress and fit “for all times and places”. It is like we suddenly woke up after sleeping for centuries and demanding the world accept our coins and monetary system as it is; moreover asking credit value for it.
Very well said subz, I second every word of it.
Posts: 956 | From: nowhere | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
The christian Reformation occured because Christianity had gone so far afield that something had to be done to get it closer to that which the founding father Jesus had taught - Islam's founding father taught the very things that the so-called radical islamists are practicing - mohammad even bragged he was successful through TERROR. So then the only muslims that can be reformed are the so-called moderate muslims - but what you will get is a true (radical) islamist for your trouble.
When violence was committed in the name of Christianity, it was contradicted by the teachings of Christ. But wars of conquest to spread Islam, dhimmi status, and other travesties have direct support in Islamic dogma and were all practiced by Mohammed himself.
Since Islamic violence springs from the Quran, Mohammed’s Sunnas and the Islamic law schools, the Muslim religion cannot be reformed in any meaningful way. This is why challenging Islam as any other expansive political ideology is justified — because Islam contains all this, along with many other things.
Even if you ignored the entire hadith literature, a religion based on the Quran alone would still be the most aggressive major religion on earth.
Posts: 3773 | From: unfinished thought | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sub-zero: God is not going to stand upon your shoulder to check if you are performing proper ablution or not. If we think so, then we are really belittling God.
Your understanding of God is different to that of Muhammad's. It is not true that with logic you will lose your faith in God. With logic you will lose your faith in Muhammad. Muhammad had no understanding of God. Whatever he said about God is nonsense. He envisioned God like a sadist dictator, someone like Saddam Hussein who does what he pleases and abides by no rules, who likes to be adulated, who rewards brainless believers and punishes freethinkers. That is not the definition of God. A man with such a low intelligence as Muhammad could not understand the greatness of God. So he described him as a wanton despot. Muhammad’s understanding of God is stupid. That is why when you use your brain and try to be logical you lose faith in his Allah. Muhammad’s god is illogical. He is not god but a figment of the mind of a very ignorant man.
Would God want us to believe in the irrational and supertitious absurdities of Muhammad? That is blasphemy. God is not irrational. It is Satan who is irrational. If Muhammad tells you not to use your brain and believe blindly, that is proof that Muhammad is not from God, but from Satan. Muhammad himself launched 78 raids in the last decade of his life. The Quran says “Fighting is prescribed for you' (Q.2:216) The very concept of Jihad is proof that Islam is against human nature. The very idea of amr bi'l ma`aroof and nahy anil munkar. (enjoining what is permitted and forbidding what is prohibited) is another proof that Islam is contrary to human nature. If Islam was in accordance to human nature, why there would be a need to impose it on people by force?
Don’t be afraid of thinking dear Muslim. Use your brain. God wants you to use your intelligence. With logic you can find the real God. Do not let impostors and conmen mislead you. Do not fall prey to their lies. God will never punish people for using their brain. By following Muhammad you are following Satan. Whatever this man did and said was satanic. Do not waste your life and your eternity following a liar. The proof that Muhammad was lying is overwhelming. You will not be rewarded for following the prophet of Satan.
Posts: 3773 | From: unfinished thought | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact remains: Jesus never hit anyone. Anger can be a sin, but if you do not use the anger to hurt someone, it is not a sin. Jesus was angry, but he never sinned, so his anger wasn't a sin.
Jesus here refuses to allow these “robbers” to make a mockery of the Temple by not only cheating honest worshipers.
The entire system was a corrupt system of oppression against the worshipers, and it particularly hit the poor the hardest (obviously) so Jesus rebukes the entire system, turns over the tables, and drives all the animals from the Temple.
It may have been an act of subversive sabotage, but not an act of violent force. Like the priests who broke into a federal building and burnt draft papers during the Vietnam War.
Don't forget Jesus was also human, and experienced that natural ebb and flow of feeling which is common to all human experience. Anger is a human emotion.
So far as we know he did not physically hurt any person or animal.
He did not torture or kill anyone.
He did not offer any teaching about the event or encourage anyone to imitate this particular behavior. Given his general style and priorities I assume that if he wanted to emphasize its significance as a "ministry” or reform technique he would have made that clear.
He never asked anyone to do anything similar to this, either on a specific occasion or as a general principle.
This action was directed against financial exploiters of people trying to worship God, and of those worshipers’ vulnerability in that particular setting.
It was not directed against those who had to use the "services” of those exploiters.
He was not trying to physically enforce his program or views, or he would have repeated the activity frequently. He would have stayed around to forcibly ensure these legal crooks did not re-establish themselves.
It was very non-violent in the sense that no blood was spilt, no arrests made, no beating or torture practiced; not even once; such events were certainly not established as a pattern.
It was not Jesus standard procedure or on-going policy, but a very tiny proportion of his public activity over those three years.
Posts: 3773 | From: unfinished thought | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
I'm living in Egypt, a country that has at least 70 Million Muslims, and a considerable amount of Expats and tourists, and I tell you this:
There aren't anyone “slaying the unbelievers wherever they are finding them” .
So are the Egyptians not practicing true religion? Or are they reforming by abrogating that verse?
Posts: 657 | From: Cairo | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Islam is Bad, How Can It Inspire People to Be Good?
Mr. Ali Sina,
I read many articles and debates in your site. I have some questions, which now troubles my mind. Please answer them if you know.
I read that you don't believe in a Supreme Deity who created this universe. My question is what is the purpose of our life without the belief in a God and to whom we will answer for our deeds. Why to be good if God does not exists and we don't have to answer for our deeds? If God doesn't exist, why shouldn't I do prostitution, cheat, and why should I try to be good at all? Where will I be after my death? Will I just become dust and nothing more?
Secondly, I read throughout your site you claim that the Quran is a book of hate, evil etc. But tell me why I became good after learning Qur'an? Believe me, I was so bad when I was 13-17, I committed many indecent acts and was close to commit the horrible crime you would imagine. I read the Qur'an because my friends told me to. I remember, I read the Qur'an with translation when I was 18-19,believe me or not, I became good after reading it. I became obedient to my parents, kind to my relatives, kept my promise, repaid my debts after reading it. Tell me why you say that the Qur'an is a book of hate, Tell me why I was guided and I am a better human being now?
Please answer my questions if you know, and relieve my distress.
Thank you. P J
Ali Sina:
Dear PJ,
The belief in a supreme deity is a personal choice. [...]
Just because no one has a definitive answer to the teleological question of existence, it does not mean we should accept any crazy explanation.
I can assure you that even if there is a God who created this universe, the purpose of his creation is not to make his creation worship him. This idea is just stupid. Imagine the size of this universe and what is our tiny planet in comparison to it. If you can't imagine, take a look at this slideshow(Please do it before you continue). Now imagine the maker of this vast universe is so petty that would torture people for eternity in the most painful and sadistic way, which is burning, if they fail to worship him and do not believe in this man that he sent as his messenger. It really takes a total idiot to believe in this gobbledygook.
This stupid tale is concocted by very sick people like Muhammad who wanted to be worshiped. He knew that if he asked people to worship HIM no one would be so fool to do it. So he invented an alias, an alter ego that he called Allah and claimed to be his messenger and demanded obedience as his proxy.
What is obvious is that even if God exists, Muhammad was not his messenger and whatever he said about God were lies. Muhammad's name was Kotham. He was also known as Halabi in the first 53 years of his life. When he migrated to Medina, he changed his name to Muhammad, (the praised one) because he was a narcissist and desperately needed to be praised.
I do not believe in the existence of a being that endowed with human feelings and is subject to the same passions that humans are. Nonetheless, if it makes more sense to you that the world should have a god and you are comfortable with that belief, there is no reason why you should stop believing. My objective is not to convince people that God does not exist. My objective is to show that Islam is a lie and Muhammad was a psychopath liar and not a good person.
Now to answer your question why we should be good if there is no God, know that this universe is governed by natural laws. These laws can be easily discovered by all people with commonsense. For example, if you put your hand in the fire you get burned. We can’t break these laws without paying the consequences. When you observe these laws, you live happily, when you break them you get hurt.
Science tells us that abuse in alcohol damages the health and affects the brain. It makes you withdrawn, affects your mood and hence you become abusive, emotionally unavailable to your family and loved ones, ignore their needs, and as the result they will carry emotional scars all their lives and hurt their children and loved ones, This will cause their families to break apart, their children to suffer, and the pain is perpetuated generation after generation and countless lives would be affected. There are terrible consequences to alcoholism. The health problems are the minor ones in comparison. The same can be said about drug abuse. Do you need someone telling you if you drink or use drug you go to hell? Isn’t the knowledge of the facts enough for you to make sensible decisions?
Prostitution is a social ill. Not only it can ruin your life by exposing you to sexually transmitted diseases, it makes you a cheap and dispensable commodity. It robs your self-esteem. It causes tremendous emotional pains and renders you incapable of loving and building meaningful relationships. If prostitution happens at early age, the damage can be irreparable. There is something sacred about sex. It is a gift that two people in love share. It is the physical expression of romantic love. The primary function of sex is of course procreation; its secondary function is fostering love between the couples, which would help binding them together, and assuring a lasting relationship. Why this is important? It’s because human society is based on families. Family is the cornerstone of humanity. It is the cradle of us humans. Healthy families mean emotionally healthy and happy humans. This means better societies, fewer crimes, less abuse, less social unrest and less suffering for all mankind. An emotionally injured person does not only cause pain to herself, but also to those who cross her path in life. Emotional pain passes from one generation to another and affects countless lives.
Using sex as a commodity goes against its intended function. It breaches the natural law and we all pay the consequences of that. The whole society is affected by it. A similar argument can be made against promiscuity, sexual libertinage, adultery, the so-called “open marriages”, and all other deviances. Ancient sages understood these natural laws and incorporated them into their teachings. Some called them religion and others simply called them teachings or philosophies. But they are just commonsense. Do we have a society that thinks prostitution is good, adultery is good, promiscuity is good? Islam is the only exception that vests prostitution will sacredness and calls it temporary "marriage". Muta, is not marriage, it is prostitution where the mullahs are pimps. Islam is the only religion that condones promiscuity and disloyalty of men in the form of polygamy. Does this foster love among the spouses? Does it ensure marital stability? It causes rivalry. It promotes jealousy, animosity and rancor. It embitters the relationship and poisons the atmosphere. Children that grow in such environment, grow emotionally lacerated. Islam is against the natural law.
Freedom of expression is wonderful. But like everything else even this great thing can be and has been abused. In the West there are television shows that openly promote promiscuity, and make it look normal. Let us not forget that this world is far from being perfect. It is affected by many ills. In the Islamic countries there is repression, oppression and corruption and in the non-Islamic countries there is libertinage, raffish and licentious lifestyle.
Do we need religion to make people moral and build a more ethical society? The truth is that religiously ruled societies are far more corrupt than the secular societies. The lack of freedom in the religious societies has given rise to hypocrisy and underground vices. The wealthy Arab sheikhs routinely travel to India, buy young Indian girls for sex and return home all under the auspicious of Islam. The mullahs, acting as pimps, solemnize their shameful perversion with “divine blessing” and temporary nikah and even provide them with rooms for the day or days that they want to stay. The Iranian mullahs have been making huge amounts of money in this kind of legalized prostitution and human trafficking by selling poor Iranian girls as sex slaves to Arabs. In Islamic countries, corruption and immorality are swept under the carpet. Everyone wears a mask and pretends piety. Hypocrisy is the name of the game.
Do religions really have an effect in mending the bad behaviour of people? Yes they do. But the influence is entirely subjective. We have countless stories of people confessing that they were living wretched lives of libertinage, drinking, abusing drugs, having sex with anyone, having troubles with the law, etc. until they found salvation in the religion that they embraced. They tell you their faith saved them. The truth is that they saved themselves. It was they who decided to change. It was their decision and their determination that pulled them out of the slum. Religion had nothing to do with it. The power came from within them. Religion was an external stimuli and nothing else. Let us clarify this with an example. Say you smoke and know that cigarettes are bad for your health. Nonetheless you don’t have enough will power to quit. One day you go for a check up and your doctor tells you, you will die within six months unless you quit smoking. Then the reality hits home. The fear of death overcomes all your cravings and from there on you stop smoking. Can you say that the doctor saved your life? All he did is to instill fear in you. At the end it was you and your determination that made you quit. Why you didn’t quit before? Because you were not afraid enough! It was the fear of death that made you become determined to fight your cravings and quit smoking. The doctor could have been mistaken, he could have made a wrong diagnosis. It was the fear of death that made the trick.
Let us make another example and this is even more appropriate. Suppose you have been hiking. You are tired, and maybe hurt and in pain. You have no energy and can hardly walk. Suddenly you see a ferocious beast running towards you. You forget all your pain and start running for your life. Obviously it is not the beast that gave you the strength, He might have caused your adrenaline to rise. The strength came from within you.
People who are in control of their selves and their actions, make sensible decisions, follow the natural laws and live happily. They know how to live right and do the right things. But those who are weak, can’t control their cravings and easily give in to lust and temptation need the fear factor to act right.
Islam is the brainchild of a psychopath and fear is the main tool of domination used by all psychopaths. Muhammad used fear to manipulate people and to make them do what he desired. Fear is the most powerful controlling force. If someone puts a gun to your head, you would do anything. It is fear that makes you do it. Islam is a fear-based doctrine. It’s not knowledge-based; it’s fear-based. People with weaker personal characters, those who have least control over their rebellious selves, find Islam very effective. They want someone to put a big fear in them and Islam does it superbly. Allah is portrayed as a ferocious demon that can torture humans in the most sadistic ways for eternity. The worst thing a criminal with a gun can do is to kill you. Allah can barbeque you for years, centuries, millions and billions and trillions of years. Believe me, that's an overkill. You cannot reason with the criminal who holds the gun. Likewise you cannot reason with Allah. He does not tolerate questioning. He demands immediate submission and blind obedience. The fear of hell and punishment is the main theme of the Quran. In fact "Hell" is the most prevalent subject in the Quran. This theme recurs 200 times. It is followed by the "Day of Judgment" that recurs 180 times. Third in rank is "Resurrection" that is repeated 118 times. Forth is Iblis or Satan. (see index) So clearly inducing fear is the ONLY message of the Quran. This fear has become the second nature of every Muslim. Their every thought is controlled by this fear.
Now, you may ask if the result is good, and the person is reformed, what is wrong with fear? Certainly not everyone has the strength of character to do the right thing on his or her own and some people need to be motivated by fear. In a sense you are right. Fear works. It works, not on responsible healthy people who do the right thing because they understand, but on people who lack discernment, who are immature, who have weak will-powers and who need to be TOLD what to do.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not trying to put down or belittle the religious people or undermine the strength of their character. There are many religious people who are salt of the Earth and paragons of goodness and strength. My point is that these good people will be good even without religion. They are in total control of their actions and do the right thing because it feels right and not because it is part of their religious indoctrination. I quit my religion but my morality stayed the same, in fact it improved. Don’t say this is because of my religious upbringing. I know many atheists with no religious upbringing, who are quintessence of goodness, pillars of strength and beacons of light. The point is that good people are good with or without religion.
When I was religious, my actions were motivated by fear, after that by knowledge. Before, I never drank. I had not tasted any alcoholic beverage in my entire life. Once I saw the foolishness of blind following I based my actions on knowledge. Now I enjoy a glass of wine or a chilled beer and I am sorry for having deprived myself of these wonderful drinks for so many years. I also know why Muhammad prohibited alcohol. One day Ali went to the shop of a Jew and when he came out he saw his camel’s hump was cut. He became furious and upon investigating he found out that his uncle Hamzah had got drunk and in that state had done this savagery. When Muhammad learned about this, he prohibited drinking. This is no reason for me to not enjoy a good glass of wine. I have never been drunk, because unlike Muhammad’s uncle I am in full control of my self. There is nothing wrong in alcohol and a glass of wine per day could be even good for your heart. It is the abuse that is wrong. Anything can be abused. If you abuse food you get sick, yet no one prohibits eating food because some people may abuse it.
What about weak people? What about those who can’t do the right thing on their own and need a strong hand to guide them and someone to tell them what to do? Many of these people have confessed that prior to their conversion their lives were in shambles, they were completely lost and lived a wretched life of sinfulness and even crimes. Isn’t better for these people to find a religion? Even if religion itself is powerless, the fear that it instills in these miserable individuals works and changes their lives. So can’t religion be a positive thing?
Yes religion can be a positive thing. Some people simply can’t live without a religion. Of course most religious people don’t need any religion. They are good and smart on their own and even if they leave their religions they will still be good people. However, some weaker individuals truly need that “big brother” watching over them, telling them what to do and what not to do. They are weak and respond only to fear and greed. They often can't distinguish between right and wrong. It is not realistic to assume all humans can find their way on their own. Some people simply don’t have the intelligence and the will power to do that. Religion can be a good thing for them. I have never said we should discard religions altogether. Religions have their place in our world and who knows, they may be around for thousands of more years. They certainly satisfy a need. Pacifier does not feed the baby, but it comforts him. Therefore it is not useless. It does not quench the thirst or satisfy the hunger, but it gives comfort. There are people who without a religion will be lost. They need a religion to feel good, to find a reason to do good and to refrain from doing evil. One Muslim wrote, if there is no religion what stops people from sleeping with their own mothers. Well, if you are this stupid, you certainly need a religion. The thought of a heavenly father watching over them is reassuring and acts as deterrent. The concept of spiritual growth is meaningless to them. But they understand hell and paradise. This is a simple concept that even fools understand. Even animals respond to the stick and carrot stimuli.
Some people are like animals. They behave right only if they fear punishment. During the disaster in New Orleans, these goons came out of their holes and started stealing, raping and shooting innocent people because they realized that they could get away with their crimes. It is naïf to think that all humans are endowed with conscience. Some people have no conscience at all. Hitler, Muhammad, Saddam and Stalin were not the exceptions. There are psychopaths all around us who do evil with clear conscience. They only respond to fear. Religion is necessary for these people. Although most of them don't give a hoot even to religion and often use it for their mischief. That is why Islam, is the religion of choice among criminals. Islam overwhelms its followers with fear and makes them comply with Muhammad’s orders.
The point is, what Muhammad ordered was not good. Yes he prohibited stealing, raping, lying, killing, etc. Nonetheless he allowed and even encouraged stealing from the non-Muslims, raping the non-Muslims, lying to non-Muslims and killing the non-Muslims. Those who convert to Islam can overcome their problems through fear but they can also be influenced negatively by the hateful teachings of Islam and become terrorists. Before, they used to steal cars and now they bomb buildings and kill thousands. Before, they were petty criminals, now they try to massacre thousands with dirty bombs. Their belief in Islam has made them overcome some of their weaknesses, like they have probably stopped fornicating, drinking or gambling but it has reduced them into mindless killing machines - monsters.
A couple of days ago I received an email from a friend. I share it with you so you can see how Islam can be a negative influence on people.
Hi Ali,
I thought I'd share something interesting with you. I was in an Arab chartroom one day and added this girl to my list. She claims to have been raised in America, and her choice of life style is very un-Islamic too. After a couple of conversations with her she asked me if I was Shiite and I told her yes (I don’t openly say I'm not Muslim, it's still a touchy subject with me). After that she told me how she doesn’t want to talk to me, that Shiites are 'dogs' or in Arabic 'kalb' and how they're not 'real' Muslims…. This hypocrite girl is defending a system, which is contrary to her life and daily practice. I finally became angry and told her I was born to Shiite parents but denounced my faith a while ago and have reached the borderline of atheism because of people like her. What I realized is this girl dates boys, does haram things but still has the nerve to condemn me because I'm not a 'real' Muslim according to her interpretation of Islam. This wrath of hate is still in her. Because of people like her Iraqis are dying and Pakistani Shiites are being massacred. A lot of Arabs are racists and prejudiced towards Persians, because of our Shiite background. Maybe this girl needs to go to Saudi Arabia and practice her western life style there.
Reza
Unfortunately what Reza has encountered is not an isolated case. This American woman is a Muslim and as the result has learned to hate people whom she has never met. Raised in America she must have been taught to accept all people equally irrespective of their faiths. This is what the constitution of America teaches. Yet as a Muslim she has become a hatemonger. I received many emails like this that testify to the fact that Islam instills hate in the hearts of its believers. Another American woman wrote and said she started dating a Muslim man in her office and without realizing; she began disliking the Jews and picking up his hatred of them. He would make comments like, “What can you expect, he (their boss, who according to her was a very good man) is a Jew, and you know how Jews are!” She confessed that after a while, without ever being told what is wrong with being a Jew, only through subliminal messages of hate, she became suspicious of Jews and felt aversion towards them.
This is the problem with Islam. Other religions also use fear to a variety of extents to impose their doctrines. However, the teachings of these religions are not generally evil. They often preach love, compassion, kindness and forgiveness. With the exception of Islam and other dangerous cults, and unless their teachings are distorted by a crooked priest, religions in general bring the best in their followers. Good people will always be good. Good people will never do evil even if they leave their religion. But good religions can also be good inspirations. They promote love and brotherhood of mankind. Mother Teresa would have become a good person even if she was born an atheist. Nonetheless, she was inspired by the teachings of love in Christianity. Her faith, did not hinder her to become the good person that she became. Instead she got that extra strength in her faith to dedicate her life for the betterment of the lives of others. Mother Teresa was a good woman and her religion brought the best out of her. What if Mother Teresa was born a Muslim? Aren’t there good people in Islam? Of course people are the same everywhere and good and bad are found among all nations. However, to become a Mother Teresa, a Muslim must disregard her religion and act against the teachings of Muhammad. She must regard non-Muslims as najis (impure, filthy, untouchable). She must not befriend non-Muslims. If she becomes a nurse, she cannot touch a man to help him. She must despise and hold in contempt Hindus, Jews, Christians and everyone else. She can't treat Muslims and non-Muslims equally. As a good Muslim she must give preference to Muslims first.
I never said we do not need religion. I personally don’t need a religion. But religion provides comfort and guidance to countless souls. I don’t think all the religious people need the religion for guidance. I am sure they know already what is right and what is not. Many of them are beacons of light. For these people, religion is not a source of guidance but a source of comfort. Therefore religion is needed. It is needed as a source of guidance to some and as a source of comfort to others.
Islam is different. Islam is not a source of guidance. It is a doctrine of hate. It is a moral relativistic religion. Islam is not a religion at all. It is a cult. We need religions but what we don’t need are hateful doctrines. What we don’t need are wolves in sheep's clothing. Islam is fascism in the guise of religion. It is a tool of domination not a way of salvation. Islam is the machination of a psychopath, to manipulate the foolhardy and to make him do anything, including commit murder.
We would only understand Islam if we see Muhammad as a psychopath, no different from Jim Jones, David Koresh, Shoko Asahara and even Charles Manson. Only then you find answers to all your questions about Islam and all pieces of the puzzle fall into place. Don’t be fooled by the fact that a billion people are Muslims or that some great luminaries were Muslims.
One of Shoko Asahara’s followers was Dr. Ikuo Hayashi, a renowned doctor. Following the orders of Asahara, he planted the toxic sarin gas in the subways of Tokyo causing the death of a dozen of people and life injuries to hundreds. How could a brilliant scientist of world fame become so fooled? He wept in his trial and strived to find an answer to that question himself. Yet at the moment, he thought he must do whatever his guru says, that it is not up to him to doubt and question the wisdom of God and his representative on Earth. Isn't this exactly how Muslims think? Dr. Hayashi is not an evil man. He had done discoveries in medicine. He and his wife, also a doctor, were genuinely good persons. They tried to find better ways to heal people and this was the reason they went after holistic medicine and meditation, which eventually led them to Asahara. These smart people fell prey to a con artist, surrendered their will and intelligence to him, lost their sense of right and wrong and committed murder. All Dr. Hayashi wanted to do was to help people. He ended killing people.
Muslims are not born bad people, but under the influence of Islam they can become true monsters. Muhammad was an evil man. Charlatans like him mix good and bad together. If everything they say is bad, no one would follow them. They say a few good things that everyone agrees and once they have you under their spell, they make you do anything they want. You become so brainwashed that you even allow them to sleep with your little daughter and wife. You even volunteer to murder your own father to gain their pleasure. You become a real monster without ever noticing it yourself. When you enquire about Islam, Muslims first tell you the good things, until you fall prey. And then, gradually they indoctrinate you with the real message of Islam that is sheer hate and violence. These Muslims themselves are victims, but they are victimizers too. They play the game of hypocrisy and deception to lure more victims to the net of Islam.
The test of the truth of a religion is not in how many good teachings it has, but in how many bad teachings it has. It is mind boggling that, very intelligent people are willing to look at a few so-called good parts of the Quran and overlook all its evil teachings. I have received many complaints from Muslims saying, “Why you only look at the bad teachings of the Quran?” How can a religion of God have even one bad teaching? Yet in Islam there are more bad teachings than good ones. Despite that the foolhardy Muslims don’t want to leave this psychopath charlatan. Why? It’s because they are afraid. They have been terrorized with tales of eternal burning and a dreadful and sadistic god. Instead of thinking rationally they give in to their fears, content themselves with few good teachings and close their eyes to all the bad ones.
You said, Islam helped you to become a better person. It is because you did not go to the depth of Islam. Your knowledge and understanding of Islam are superficial. Once you become a full-fledged Muslim, you can even become a terrorist. In fact you may be well in your way of dehumanization without even noticing it. Of course no one thinks he is bad. Have you started disliking the Jews? Are you automatically taking the side of the Muslims anywhere there is a conflict between them and others? Do you divide mankind in Muslim-unbeliever dichotomy and identify yourself with the former taking their side all the time? Do you think non-Muslims will go hell or are sinners? Do you think apostates deserve to be killed? Did you feel some satisfaction when you heard that thousands of Americans were killed in 9/11 or did you think that somehow they deserved to die? Most Muslims, (if not all of them) would answer yes to most or all of these questions. If that is the case, you have lost your humanity already. The fact that you started obeying your parents, became kind to your relatives, kept your promises and repaid your debts fade in comparison to the monster that you have become. Even hyenas are kind to their own pack. Even Pablo Escobar, the notorious Columbian gangster and the drug lord had done lots of charity works for his people and many in his city, Medellin, loved him. Even the White Supremacists, whose doctrine is based on hatred of Jews, blacks and all non-whites have teachings advocating kindness to their own kind. Article 7 of their 16 commandments says: “Show preferential treatment in business dealings with members of your own race”. The fact that they are good to their own does not make them good people.
The point is that Muslims don’t even realize how evil Islam is and how much humanity they lose when they let themselves to be influenced by it. In fact they think what they do is good. They take pride in their newfound hatred and see themselves as superior. Even though they have become monsters, they can't see it. Usually criminals are aware of their evil deeds. Muslims are not. They have the confirmation from their religion to hate and to hurt. When they do evil to non-Muslims, they think they have done God's work. They praise Allah when they are about to take the life of an innocent non-Muslim. No criminal invokes the name of God when he is about to commit murder. This clearly shows that Muslims are not aware of the monster that they have become by simply believing in a monster.
I am certain that most Muslims are essentially good people and the influence of Islam on them will pass once they are weaned from it, the way the influence of drug will pass when it is taken away from the addict. Once they learn the truth, most Muslims, those whose humanity is still alive, will leave Islam and come back to the fold of humanity. Truth is tremendously powerful. Truth will eventually overcome falsehood. Most people don’t want to be fooled. Once it becomes evident that Islam is false, they will leave it. It is not easy, but it is a personal battle that each one of us has to make. You can win this battle. Many of us have fought this inner battle and have won. You can do it too.
Posts: 3773 | From: unfinished thought | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
Love is my religion, Love is my religion, Love is my religion I'll take you to the temple tonight
All my days I've been searching, to find out what this life is worth through the books and bibles of time I've made up my mind I don't condemn, I don't convert, this is a calling have you heard bring all the lovers to the fold, cause no one is gonna lose their soul
Love is my religion, Love is my religion, Love is my religion hey you can take it or leave it, and you don't have to believe it
I don't want to fight, hey let's go fly a kite there's nothing that we can't cure, and I'll keep you in my arms for sure so don't let nobody stop us, free spirits have to soar with you I share the gift, the gift that we now know oh oh oh
Well I'm done searching now, I found out what this life is worth not in the books that I find, but by searching my mind I don't condemn, I don't convert this is the calling have you heard, no one is gonna lose their soul
posted
I'm kind of disappointed UT, though music is a wonderful tool and I happen to like Bob Marly and Ziggy, but I was hoping you would consider answering my question in your own words. Posts: 657 | From: Cairo | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm living in Egypt, a country that has at least 70 Million Muslims, and a considerable amount of Expats and tourists, and I tell you this:
There aren't anyone “slaying the unbelievers wherever they are finding them” .
So are the Egyptians not practicing true religion? Or are they reforming by abrogating that verse?
Neither. The verse when taken in context does not mean slay all unbelievers anytime anywhere.
exactly, but this is the problem when one answers UT, we get pages and pages of recycled copy/paste which has very little to do with the subject. The more answers you give the longer the pages get. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think ut we have to discuss the points you raised point by point.
for example you said the there is a difference in the understanding of God between Muhammad and Jesus pray and blessings be upon them ,you also said other things,so why don't you discuss these point by point ?!
and BTW,you talk for yourself not Ali Sinai ,it would be impossible to read the flood of articles you post.
Again,Islam does not urge violence,Islam is always in a position to defend himself,Prophet Muhammad had to use the sword after the pagans attacked him and stole Muslims money!
Allah HIMSELF,says that war is the last option ,and it is so hateful
look at these
2:216
"Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know"
So Allah knows War is so harsh and he knows we hate it
and in the another verse Allah ORDERS Muslims to accept peace if our enemies is willing to stop fighting although they may be tricking us
8:61
"But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it , and (put your) trust in Allah. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower."
So Islam does not know violence except it is imposed on it ,when Muslims are faced by war and people who want to destroy them ,we then have to fight
Posts: 2417 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to figure out how much time this poor UT must be taking to Google and copy/paste all that baloney, she's obviously on a crusade against Islam, whatever this will take, even if it meant not having a life. Posts: 3219 | From: Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone. | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
of course Akmad, thats what I expected of you and also expected you to get into 'discussion' with UT as you KNOW UT does not 'discuss' but copy and pastes, thats got to be easier than thinking of something to say to my posts Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^No ,Ayisha I am writing the reply since the words in that specific verse has a lot of cases in Arabic ,make sure I am gonna post it tomorrow
Posts: 2417 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rahala: So Islam does not know violence except it is imposed on it ,when Muslims are faced by war and people who want to destroy them ,we then have to fight
Ahmad, are you sure Muslims commanded to kill only when they are under physical attack by others, or is there a mandate to establish Islamic rule by force?
Let's apply the context of the actions of the early Muslim community to verses 4:90 and 9:5.
Within the first decade after Muhammad’s death, Muslim armies attacked Persia, Syria (the Byzantine empire), Africa and many other places outside of Arabia for reasons that had nothing to do with self-defense. Within a few more decades, they had managed to wage war against every major world religion at the time: Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism.
Not only did Muhammad’s own companions put to the sword followers of other religion, but they even fought each other. Thousands of Muslims were killed in the Ridda wars, which were waged merely to keep Arab tribes from following their desire to leave Islam. The caliph who authorized this campaign was Abu Bakr, who also happened to have been the only one of the first four caliphs not to be murdered. His own son wound up killing the third caliph, and the fourth was murdered by the fifth.
If the very people who walked with Muhammad believed in violence as a means of establishing Islamic rule over people who were not attacking them, then the “4:90 standard,” against which some Muslims insist verses like 9:5 are to be passed, is quite likely a more recent invention.
The fourth chapter of the Qur’an was “revealed” in the midst of a conflict between the Muslims at Medina and a local Jewish tribe called the Banu Nadir. The Jews were eventually attacked and driven from their homes by Muhammad, who personally confiscated the tribe’s wealth (based on a handy “revelation” from Allah that is immortalized in the Qur’an to this day).
The historical account is sharply at odds with any interpretation that Muslims are required to be under physical assault before killing in ‘self-defense.’ Not only were Muhammad’s people not under attack by the Banu Nadir, but the Jews were actually under attack by them!
Several Jews had already been assassinated on Muhammad’s order, including a Banu Nadir leader named Ka’b al-Ashraf, who was stabbed to death in gruesome fashion. Ironically, Muhammad laid siege and evicted the Jews after hearing (from Allah) that they were planning to assassinate him in retaliation! (Islam has never been accused of extending the same consideration to others that it demands for itself).
But what of verse 9:5? Is the command to slay unbelievers for the purpose of advancing Muslim rule also weakened by the historical context in which it was “revealed?”
Not hardly.
Verse 9:5 authorized violence at a time when Muslims had complete power in Mecca, having just conquered the town by sweeping in with a dominant army that encountered no real opposition from a local population that was not at war. Muslims were not under persecution at Mecca. Instead, they were busy destroying the idols of the local religion and banning people of other faiths from performing the Haj (pilgrimage). In other words, Muhammad’s people were the persecutors!
This is true even by the Qur'an's own standards. When Muhammad said in the second chapter that “persecution is worse than slaughter,” he was explicitly referring to the ban that the Meccans had in place against him from performing the Haj. Yet, when he took the city ten years later, the first thing that he did was to prohibit anyone who wasn’t Muslim from doing the same thing! (Again, Islam has never been accused of extending the same courtesy to others that it demands for itself).
So the historical context of verses 4:90 and 9:5 is that Muslims were engaging in violence against those who were not physically attacking them. As 9:5 (and the entire ninth sura) implies, the establishment of Islamic rule by force is its own justification.
Posts: 3773 | From: unfinished thought | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Neither. The verse when taken in context does not mean slay all unbelievers anytime anywhere.
Actually the context of this verse is this:
"What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the hypocrites, when Allah cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they earned? Seek ye to guide him whom Allah hath sent astray? He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him thou (O Muhammad) canst not find a road. They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them. (4:88-4:89)]"
-----------
This passage isn’t telling Muslims to kill in defense of their lives and property, but rather to kill in defense of their religion. Suddenly 4:90 takes on a whole different meaning.
The verses obviously address a situation in which there is disagreement within Muhammad’s burgeoning community over the befriending of the unbelievers referred to as “hypocrites.” Had the Muslims been under physical attack at the time, then there would surely have been no controversy (ie. "two parties"), since one is not inclined to be friendly towards an attacker. Instead, the threat at Medina was more subtle. It was ideological.
Remember that when Muhammad preached at Mecca, there were few Jews there to contradict his claim of being a Jewish prophet. At Medina however, there were many Jews and most rejected his contention because it was based on a flawed understanding of the Torah. Muhammad’s response, of course, was to arbitrarily declare his own version of truth as the standard and to allege that any deviation was a corruption.
There is no evidence that the Jews ever altered their scriptures to preclude Muhammad’s prophethood, however. Confronted with the full story from their non-Muslim friends (some of whom were of the Banu Nadir), certain Muslims were turning away from their faith in Muhammad. Like any successful cult leader, Muhammad knew that his follower’s credulity in his divine claims could only be salvaged by driving a physical wedge between them and their non-believing friends and family.
In verses 4:88-89, Muhammad teaches that killing is a legitimate means of defending Islam from ideological challenge.
According to the full textual context of verse 4:90, therefore, Muslims are justified in killing those who resist Islam regardless of whether or not the Muslim community is under physical assault. Those who are protected from Muslim aggression in 4:90 are only those who pose no threat to the advancement of Islam (such as dhimmis).
Along the same lines, the full textual context of verse 9:5 proves that Muslims are commanded to kill for reasons other than self-defense:
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (9:5)"
The “sacred months” refer to the four-month period of the Haj. If Muslims were under physical assault at the time, then they would certainly not have waited four months to defend themselves, particularly since they had already been give permission to fight during the sacred months (in the Qur’an’s second chapter).
The justification for attacking unbelievers is found in the last part of the verse. It is their unbelief. No other reason is given. The non-Muslims are to be killed and taken captive until they convert to Islam, as outwardly demonstrated by adopting the zakat and salat (prayer and charity are pillars of Islam).
Some Muslims isolate verse 4:90 to avoid the textual, historical, and logical contradictions that are otherwise introduced by the context of the verse. At the same time, no such games are necessary with verse 9:5, the command to “slay pagans wherever ye find them.”
It is also important to note that verse 9:5 would have to take priority over 4:90 in the event of a conflict, since it is a later “revelation.” According to the Qur’an, Allah “substitutes” revelations when a better one comes along (16:101). On this basis alone, it is therefore more honest to pass verse 4:90 against the “9:5 standard” rather than the other way around.
Posts: 3773 | From: unfinished thought | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rahala: Well,give me some time to read this !
have you not got it yet? the idea is to SPAM with copy pastes so you dont have time to read and reply! She does not READ them OR your replies and she has HER copy/paste reply READY.
I see that you would rather waste time with UT than answer the questions raised by those who CAN think and type for themsleves. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Within the first decade after Muhammad’s death, Muslim armies attacked Persia, Syria (the Byzantine empire), Africa and many other places outside of Arabia for reasons that had nothing to do with self-defense. Within a few more decades, they had managed to wage war against every major world religion at the time: Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism.
This is completely untrue; the Roman Empire had already attacked Muslims (northern Arabia) Also Persian had already attacked Muslims in the day of the prophet. So it would be so normal and ordinary that Muslims attack them in response for that!
Now, you will ask, but what was the reason for attacking the Romans in Egypt?
It is the ingenuity of Amor Ebon Al-Aas who fought the Roman in Syria to advise Omar Ebn AL-khattab (2nd Caliph) to Attack Egypt, but why?
Omar in the beginning refused and he then consulted the other companions and all of them agreed with Omar but eventually managed to convince them, how?
it is a known fact (in military science)when your enemy surrounds your from 2 directions ,he will make you weak since he can make you divide your troops between 2 wars at a time (which happened with the US in Afghanistan and Iraq ),no country whatever power it has can fight 2 wars at a time and since the roman Empire that time surrounds Arabia from the North (Syria and above)and from the west(Egypt and others) and when The Arabs managed to kick the romans out of Syria it would be for safety if they could kick them out of Egypt so the Muslim state has only one border with the Romans, which is the north borders ,so it would be predictable and easier less harm if the Romans attack ,which indeed happened ,the Romans after that were not able to supply their troops from various locations as they did before on the says of the prophet, the Romans insulted the prophet when he invited them to Islam and not only that ,they attacked Muslims so it would be normal that Muslims consider them as danger ,and as a summary ,the attack against Persian and the Roman empire in the days of the companions of the prophet after the death of the prophet was as a response for the dangers imposed on them from these 2 empires and the Attack against Egypt to secure the borders and make them(the Roman empire) lose the military advantage from they gained over Muslims since they can Attack the Muslim state from 2 directions, it was a military obligation to secure the Romans after they even refused to make peace with Muslims of that time, the same happened with the USA when they tried to attack Iraq they tried to invade from 2 different locations from Kuwait and from Syria or turkey the commanders knew that it would facilitate their mission but they attacked through one direction which took them too long to finish Sad am and invade Iraq
quote: which were waged merely to keep Arab tribes from following their desire to leave *Islam.
no they did not want to leave Islam ,they wanted to invent a new Islam which Abo baker did not allow ,and do not forget that Abo --baker tried to convince them but eventually they gathered together and attacked Abobaker in Al-madina which made abo-baker to hide the wives of the prophet (he was afraid they might get captured and this would be disaster by itself),they invented new Islam ,they liked Islam ,they liked the idea that they could worship Allah alone but when it came to Alms ,they did not want to pay it ,and he tried to tell them ,to pay it later if they had some trouble, but they were rich and did not want to pay it, they had the wish to invent their own definition not to leave it ,huge difference ,they wanted to take something’s and leave the others but this is not allowable in Islam ,you have to take the 5 pillars as it ,no question or discussion.
They did not want to leave, they wanted to invent a new religion and this is can be called civil war no more no less
quote:The fourth chapter of the Qur’an was “revealed” in the midst of a conflict between the Muslims at Medina and a local Jewish tribe called the Banu Nadir. The Jews were eventually attacked and driven from their homes by Muhammad, who personally confiscated the tribe’s wealth (based on a handy “revelation” from Allah that is immortalized in the Qur’an to this day).
This is not true at all! The conflict between the prophet and the Jews started the same day the prophet arrived in Al-madina!
Unbelievable!!
The story is scattered throughout Quran, Surat 2 and perhaps in every Surat not only chapter 4! And yes they were driven away from their homes after they helped Muslims enemies against their alliance which was Muslims!
Remember that the Jews that time promised the prophet to defend Al-Madina with him against any of the enemies the Jewish tribes were enemies to each other ,there were 3 tribes in Almandina that time :Banu Qaynoqa’,Banu Al-nadir and Banu Qariza and pagans in Al-Madina was Al-Aws and the other Arabic tribe was Al-khazraj .The 2 Arabic tribes always fought each other while 2 the Jewish tribes helped one Arabic tribe and the 3rd Jewish tribe helped the other Arabic tribe, but when the prophet came to al-Madina ,the Arabs did not attack each other anymore and all of them converted and some of course were Christians ,now the Jews promised the prophet to defend Al-Madina, but Suddenly in Al-Hazab war the Jews helped the Arab tribes who attacked Al-Madina not only this they offered them a way to leak into Almandina !
And the problems continue with the Jews because they cannot keep their words so eventually they are kicked out of Al-madina! This will happen to Israel Insha’Allah.
The Jews became that time were not welcomed in the society anymore, and All-Muslims hated them already because of their bad and harsh deeds towards Muslims and not to say how they dealt with Muslims, made Muslims hate them so much, they breached the promise they gave to the prophet to help him against any enemy who attack Almandina but they broke the promise, it is called Treason they cheated their country and anyone who cheats his country, you know the penalty is death for this huge crime,but the [prophet who was the head of the state at that time did not kill them ,but kicked them out of Al-Madina
quote: Several Jews had already been assassinated on Muhammad’s order, including a Banu Nadir leader named Ka’b al-Ashraf, who was stabbed to death in gruesome fashion. Ironically, Muhammad laid siege and evicted the Jews after hearing (from Allah) that they were planning to assassinate him in retaliation!
Holly Holly……………………..!!
Where did you get that!
That did not happen!
quote:But what of verse 9:5? Is the command to slay unbelievers for the purpose of advancing Muslim rule also weakened by the historical context in which it was “revealed?”
I said before and posted before the verse who ORDERS Muslims not to attack anybody unless they are attacked!
Should I repeat that 1000000000 times before you understand!
Well, I can post it again and again and again to infinity!
quote: Instead, they were busy destroying the idols of the local religion and banning people of other faiths from performing the Haj (pilgrimage). In other words, Muhammad’s people were the persecutors!
One of the biggest lies in life, it is even larger than the lie Bush committed when he invaded Iraq!
It is known that Muslims immigrated from Mecca because they were weak, and sooooo weak to the degree that a lot of them tried to kill the prophet but were not able, pagans of Mecca even tried to gather one youth person from each tribe and if I am not mistaken they collected 12 persons and all of that tried to kill the prophet but guess what they were not able!
UT, Do not fake history!
If Muslims were that strong why they immigrated in the first place to Ethiopia and Al-madina!
************ This is true even by the Qur'an's own standards. When Muhammad said in the second chapter that “persecution is worse than slaughter,” he was explicitly referring to the ban that the Meccans had in place against him from performing the Haj. Yet, when he took the city ten years later, the first thing that he did was to prohibit anyone who wasn’t Muslim from doing the same thing! (Again, Islam has never been accused of extending the same courtesy to others that it demands for itself).
Where did you get that?!
Of course not, you throw accusations without any proof!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
quote:So the historical context of verses 4:90 and 9:5 is that Muslims were engaging in violence against those who were not physically attacking them. As 9:5 (and the entire ninth Surat) implies, the establishment of Islamic rule by force is its own justification.
The history which you faked in your whole post!
And after I replied to you in the whole post, it is known that there was single true fact or any justification in your allegations!!
I really do not know what are you trying to say or think after I proved to you that this Quran is divine!(Remeber Islam QnA)
Posts: 2417 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rahala: Well,give me some time to read this !
have you not got it yet? the idea is to SPAM with copy pastes so you dont have time to read and reply! She does not READ them OR your replies and she has HER copy/paste reply READY.
I see that you would rather waste time with UT than answer the questions raised by those who CAN think and type for themsleves.
Well ,make sure I will reply to you and you will never be able to reply this time since the reply will be a lesson in Arabic rules/grammer/Nahw which you never heard of ,
I will not reply to UT 2nd post ,I think the first is a copy/paste article
Posts: 2417 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rahala: Well,give me some time to read this !
have you not got it yet? the idea is to SPAM with copy pastes so you dont have time to read and reply! She does not READ them OR your replies and she has HER copy/paste reply READY.
I see that you would rather waste time with UT than answer the questions raised by those who CAN think and type for themsleves.
I will not reply to UT 2nd post ,I think the first is a copy/paste article
Duh! they ALL are Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by unfinished thought.: Verse 9:5 authorized violence at a time when Muslims had complete power in Mecca, having just conquered the town by sweeping in with a dominant army that encountered no real opposition from a local population that was not at war.
quote:Originally posted by Rahala: One of the biggest lies in life, It is known that Muslims immigrated from Mecca because they were weak, UT, Do not fake history! If Muslims were that strong why they immigrated in the first place to Ethiopia and Al-madina!
You are missing the point. UT is refering to when he came back to Mecca.
Posts: 657 | From: Cairo | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^well ,No Meccans were in a peace treaty with Muslims in Al-Madina ,known as solh Al-Hodayebya and meccans breached it first when they attacked Muslims worshiping at Al-Kaaba ,the treaty was about no-one attack any other alliance and since Meccans attacked the Muslim tribes in Mecca who were the alliance of the prophet ,this was considered as a declaration of war and breaching the treaty,Even Abo_sofian when he attacked Muslims at Kaaba one the chief of Muslims of that time(I really do not remember his name right now but I can search for if you want) told Abo_sofyan when he attacked them at Kaaba ,remember the treaty between us and you and remember that god is watching you he replied in full *********** told him "No god today
"La Ellah Alyawm"
there is no atheism more than this phrase !
and After the pagans slayed Muslims at Kaaba they apologized to the prophet and begged him to keep the treaty but he refused and he attacked them ,
They started it
Posts: 2417 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Neither. The verse when taken in context does not mean slay all unbelievers anytime anywhere.
Actually the context of this verse is this:
"What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the hypocrites, when Allah cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they earned? Seek ye to guide him whom Allah hath sent astray? He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him thou (O Muhammad) canst not find a road. They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them. (4:88-4:89)]"
-----------
This passage isn’t telling Muslims to kill in defense of their lives and property, but rather to kill in defense of their religion. Suddenly 4:90 takes on a whole different meaning.
The verses obviously address a situation in which there is disagreement within Muhammad’s burgeoning community over the befriending of the unbelievers referred to as “hypocrites.” Had the Muslims been under physical attack at the time, then there would surely have been no controversy (ie. "two parties"), since one is not inclined to be friendly towards an attacker. Instead, the threat at Medina was more subtle. It was ideological.
Remember that when Muhammad preached at Mecca, there were few Jews there to contradict his claim of being a Jewish prophet. At Medina however, there were many Jews and most rejected his contention because it was based on a flawed understanding of the Torah. Muhammad’s response, of course, was to arbitrarily declare his own version of truth as the standard and to allege that any deviation was a corruption.
There is no evidence that the Jews ever altered their scriptures to preclude Muhammad’s prophethood, however. Confronted with the full story from their non-Muslim friends (some of whom were of the Banu Nadir), certain Muslims were turning away from their faith in Muhammad. Like any successful cult leader, Muhammad knew that his follower’s credulity in his divine claims could only be salvaged by driving a physical wedge between them and their non-believing friends and family.
In verses 4:88-89, Muhammad teaches that killing is a legitimate means of defending Islam from ideological challenge.
According to the full textual context of verse 4:90, therefore, Muslims are justified in killing those who resist Islam regardless of whether or not the Muslim community is under physical assault. Those who are protected from Muslim aggression in 4:90 are only those who pose no threat to the advancement of Islam (such as dhimmis).
Along the same lines, the full textual context of verse 9:5 proves that Muslims are commanded to kill for reasons other than self-defense:
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (9:5)"
The “sacred months” refer to the four-month period of the Haj. If Muslims were under physical assault at the time, then they would certainly not have waited four months to defend themselves, particularly since they had already been give permission to fight during the sacred months (in the Qur’an’s second chapter).
The justification for attacking unbelievers is found in the last part of the verse. It is their unbelief. No other reason is given. The non-Muslims are to be killed and taken captive until they convert to Islam, as outwardly demonstrated by adopting the zakat and salat (prayer and charity are pillars of Islam).
Some Muslims isolate verse 4:90 to avoid the textual, historical, and logical contradictions that are otherwise introduced by the context of the verse. At the same time, no such games are necessary with verse 9:5, the command to “slay pagans wherever ye find them.”
It is also important to note that verse 9:5 would have to take priority over 4:90 in the event of a conflict, since it is a later “revelation.” According to the Qur’an, Allah “substitutes” revelations when a better one comes along (16:101). On this basis alone, it is therefore more honest to pass verse 4:90 against the “9:5 standard” rather than the other way around.
I take it that right after that verse was revealed, all pagans were forced to convert or exterminated, right? It is also reasonable to assume that that practiced continued at least in the life of the prophet and his companions. Right?
Posts: 406 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Do not blame me if you did not understand the following
I will talk in brief about the verse {مَّا أَفَاء اللَّهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْقُرَى فَلِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ وَلِذِي الْقُرْبَى وَالْيَتَامَى وَالْمَسَاكِينِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيلِ كَيْ لَا يَكُونَ دُولَةً بَيْنَ الْأَغْنِيَاء مِنكُمْ وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانتَهُوا وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ }الحشر7
7:7 “What Allah gave as booty (Fai') to His Messenger (Muhammad ) from the people of the townships - it is for Allah, His Messenger (Muhammad ), the kindred (of Messenger Muhammad), the orphans, Al-Masakin (the poor), and the wayfarer, in order that it may not become a fortune used by the rich among you. And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammad) gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain {from it). And fear Allah; verily, Allah is Severe in punishment.”
I am not going to talk about the English verse but I am going to talk about the Arabic construction of this verse.
The whole point in this verse resides about the understanding of the word “Ma” which is translated as whatsoever, so I am going talk now about “Ma”
In Arabic Ma is a conjunction and can have various meanings:
1-Negative conjunction such as “Ma zahab” which mean he did not go, so “ma “gives the meaning of “He/she/they did not”
2-Question ,such as “ma howa”which means what is that? Or who is that? “Ma” here means what or who
3 &4-there are 2 kinds of “Ma ” : AlHijazya and Al-Tamimya
“ma AlHijazya ” mean not and used as in 1 but “ma “ altamimya has no meaning and can be omitted from the context without effecting the meaing.
5-“Ma ” Al-Mawsola which mean that/what but not in question such as “Be’s ma fa’alt””b2s ma fa3alt””بئس ما فعلت” to mean what you have done is no shameful
This last kind is so famous in the Language
6-Exclamation and admiration such as “ma agmal Alsama’ ””ما أجمل السماء” which means how beautiful is the sky!
7-harf kaf !"حرف كافٍ"
Used with Ena”إن”
It is called like that because it stops “Ena ” from functioning such as “Enama Muhammad Bashr” Which means Muhammad is nothing but Human being
8-There are other kinds of “ma” and it can be classified according its meaning o tots function in the sentence (E’rab)
So the question now what is the kind of “ma” in the Arabic verse?!
It is none of the above!! But is close to the meaning of 5 and means whatsoever ,but the question is still there whatsoever of what?!this time “ma” here is the most unrestricted word in Arabic at is now used as to mean “Whatsoever with no restriction” The verse is not clear up till now about it.
I will not going to give detailed explanation of “ma ”in this verse but I would rather post the source and give a similar verse which contains the same kind of ”ma ” and its meaning as in this verse .
The word “ma ” in this verse is known to grammarians as “Esm Shart Gazem”(No translation for that !)(اسم شرط جازم) and has the same meaning of “ma” in this verse
2:116
“And they (Jews, Christians and pagans) say: Allah has begotten a son (children or offspring)ltI. Glory be to Him (Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him). Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth, and all surrender with obedience (in worship) to Him.”
The same “ma ” is used in the 2 verses and in the second it means “TO Allah belongs whatsoever in Heavens and on Earth”
This is the kind of “ma ” in the verse under examination “it is the unrestricted “ma””Esm Mawsol”
And “ma ” in the verse under examination 7:7 is the second object of the verb “Atakom’ so that the sentence should mean”allazy atakom Alraso fakhozoh””الذي أتاكم الرسول فخوذه”
The subject is the prophet and one object is “we ,Muslims” and the other is “ma”
So weird Arabic rules !
Source :1-“al-Erab Al-Mofasal”1st edition, Dar Al-fekr lelnashr wa altawzee’
quote:Neither. The verse when taken in context does not mean slay all unbelievers anytime anywhere.
Actually the context of this verse is this:
"What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the hypocrites, when Allah cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they earned? Seek ye to guide him whom Allah hath sent astray? He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him thou (O Muhammad) canst not find a road. They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them. (4:88-4:89)]"
-----------
This passage isn’t telling Muslims to kill in defense of their lives and property, but rather to kill in defense of their religion. Suddenly 4:90 takes on a whole different meaning.
The verses obviously address a situation in which there is disagreement within Muhammad’s burgeoning community over the befriending of the unbelievers referred to as “hypocrites.” Had the Muslims been under physical attack at the time, then there would surely have been no controversy (ie. "two parties"), since one is not inclined to be friendly towards an attacker. Instead, the threat at Medina was more subtle. It was ideological.
Remember that when Muhammad preached at Mecca, there were few Jews there to contradict his claim of being a Jewish prophet. At Medina however, there were many Jews and most rejected his contention because it was based on a flawed understanding of the Torah. Muhammad’s response, of course, was to arbitrarily declare his own version of truth as the standard and to allege that any deviation was a corruption.
There is no evidence that the Jews ever altered their scriptures to preclude Muhammad’s prophethood, however. Confronted with the full story from their non-Muslim friends (some of whom were of the Banu Nadir), certain Muslims were turning away from their faith in Muhammad. Like any successful cult leader, Muhammad knew that his follower’s credulity in his divine claims could only be salvaged by driving a physical wedge between them and their non-believing friends and family.
In verses 4:88-89, Muhammad teaches that killing is a legitimate means of defending Islam from ideological challenge.
According to the full textual context of verse 4:90, therefore, Muslims are justified in killing those who resist Islam regardless of whether or not the Muslim community is under physical assault. Those who are protected from Muslim aggression in 4:90 are only those who pose no threat to the advancement of Islam (such as dhimmis).
Along the same lines, the full textual context of verse 9:5 proves that Muslims are commanded to kill for reasons other than self-defense:
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (9:5)"
The “sacred months” refer to the four-month period of the Haj. If Muslims were under physical assault at the time, then they would certainly not have waited four months to defend themselves, particularly since they had already been give permission to fight during the sacred months (in the Qur’an’s second chapter).
The justification for attacking unbelievers is found in the last part of the verse. It is their unbelief. No other reason is given. The non-Muslims are to be killed and taken captive until they convert to Islam, as outwardly demonstrated by adopting the zakat and salat (prayer and charity are pillars of Islam).
Some Muslims isolate verse 4:90 to avoid the textual, historical, and logical contradictions that are otherwise introduced by the context of the verse. At the same time, no such games are necessary with verse 9:5, the command to “slay pagans wherever ye find them.”
It is also important to note that verse 9:5 would have to take priority over 4:90 in the event of a conflict, since it is a later “revelation.” According to the Qur’an, Allah “substitutes” revelations when a better one comes along (16:101). On this basis alone, it is therefore more honest to pass verse 4:90 against the “9:5 standard” rather than the other way around.
I take it that right after that verse was revealed, all pagans were forced to convert or exterminated, right? It is also reasonable to assume that that practiced continued at least in the life of the prophet and his companions. Right?
Mseenger ,Do not swallow the bait .
Nothing of her article worth commenting !
fake history
Posts: 2417 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Do not blame me if you did not understand the following
7:7 “What Allah gave as booty (Fai') to His Messenger (Muhammad ) from the people of the townships - it is for Allah, His Messenger (Muhammad ), the kindred (of Messenger Muhammad), the orphans, Al-Masakin (the poor), and the wayfarer, in order that it may not become a fortune used by the rich among you. And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammad) gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain {from it). And fear Allah; verily, Allah is Severe in punishment.”
First I have to point out this verse is 59:7, NOT 7:7. When using copy/paste it is best to check that THEY have the correct references.
quote:I am not going to talk about the English verse but I am going to talk about the Arabic construction of this verse.
The whole point in this verse resides about the understanding of the word “Ma” which is translated as whatsoever, so I am going talk now about “Ma”
In Arabic Ma is a conjunction and can have various meanings:
1-Negative conjunction such as “Ma zahab” which mean he did not go, so “ma “gives the meaning of “He/she/they did not”
2-Question ,such as “ma howa”which means what is that? Or who is that? “Ma” here means what or who
3 &4-there are 2 kinds of “Ma ” : AlHijazya and Al-Tamimya
“ma AlHijazya ” mean not and used as in 1 but “ma “ altamimya has no meaning and can be omitted from the context without effecting the meaing.
5-“Ma ” Al-Mawsola which mean that/what but not in question such as “Be’s ma fa’alt””b2s ma fa3alt.......... to mean what you have done is no shameful
This last kind is so famous in the Language
6-Exclamation and admiration such as “ma agmal Alsama .....which means how beautiful is the sky!
7-harf kaf
Used with Ena
It is called like that because it stops “Ena ” from functioning such as “Enama Muhammad Bashr” Which means Muhammad is nothing but Human being
8-There are other kinds of “ma” and it can be classified according its meaning o tots function in the sentence (E’rab)
So the question now what is the kind of “ma” in the Arabic verse?!
It is none of the above!! But is close to the meaning of 5 and means whatsoever ,but the question is still there whatsoever of what?!this time “ma” here is the most unrestricted word in Arabic at is now used as to mean “Whatsoever with no restriction” The verse is not clear up till now about it.
I will not going to give detailed explanation of “ma ”in this verse but I would rather post the source and give a similar verse which contains the same kind of ”ma ” and its meaning as in this verse .
The word “ma ” in this verse is known to grammarians as “Esm Shart Gazem”(No translation for that !) and has the same meaning of “ma” in this verse
2:116
“And they (Jews, Christians and pagans) say: Allah has begotten a son (children or offspring)ltI. Glory be to Him (Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him). Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth, and all surrender with obedience (in worship) to Him.”
The same “ma ” is used in the 2 verses and in the second it means “TO Allah belongs whatsoever in Heavens and on Earth”
This is the kind of “ma ” in the verse under examination “it is the unrestricted “ma””Esm Mawsol”
And “ma ” in the verse under examination 7:7 is the second object of the verb “Atakom’ so that the sentence should mean”allazy atakom Alraso fakhozoh
The subject is the prophet and one object is “we ,Muslims” and the other is “ma”
So weird Arabic rules !
Source :1-“al-Erab Al-Mofasal”1st edition, Dar Al-fekr lelnashr wa altawzee’
2-AlTatbeek Alnahwy ,dar Elnahda alarabia
Thank you for the long detailed lesson in Arabic but you have only confirmed what I previously said. As you say it means 'whatsoever' which you can see I have made bold what the whatsoever is. It is the 'what' that Allah 'gave' as booty to Muhammed and the second part carried on from the first part to say 'whatsover' (or what, or whatever) the prophet 'gives' you (that Allah 'gave' him) then take it etc etc.
Seems the translators had an excellent command of Arabic AND English. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
before 'ma' is 'wa' which is 'and', 'and' is an ADDITION word both in English and Arabic so it is ADDING to the previous sentence regarding booty.
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even Abo_sofian when he attacked Muslims at Kaaba one the chief of Muslims of that time(I really do not remember his name right now but I can search for if you want)
Two historical incidents regarding this:
1) The first was after the Badr battle, when Sa'ad Ibn Al Nooman went to Mecca to perform Oumra, that is when Abu Sofian held him as a POW against his own son Amro that was imprisoned by the Muslims. The Prophet agreed and the exchange was made.
2) The second incident that you are reffering to is due to the famous fight between the tribes of Bani Ka'ab from Khoza'a (allians of the Prophet) and and Bakr (allians of Mecca). That incident is what led to the opening of Mecca.
(Ibn Katheer - Al Bedaya wa Al Nehaya, book 3, P.311-312)
Amr Bin Salem the chief of Khoza'a went to the prophet and asked for his support. Quoting the following poetry:
يارب انى ناشد محمدا حلف أبيه وأبينا الأتلدا فأنصر هداك الله نصرا أعتدا وادع عباد الله يأتوا مددا
The Prophet said:
لا نصرت ان لم أنصر بنى كعب مما أنصر به نفسى. أن هذا السحاب ليستهل بنصر بنى كعب
(Al Balarzy - Ansab Al Ashraaf, book 1, P.353 and 86)
The prophet then send to surrounding tribes, namely Aslam, Ghoffar, Mazina, Gohayna, Ashga'a and Selim, some of which came to him in Medina, some joined him in his road to Mecca.
Abu Sofian, the chief of Mecca announced that Quraish had nothing to do with the war between the tribes, he even went himself to the Prophet in Medina to explain that they respect their treaty. But in no avail.
Posts: 657 | From: Cairo | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic